The Supreme People’s Court Issued Opinions on Lawfully Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence
Fa Fa [2026] No. 10
The Supreme People’s Court
Opinions on Lawfully Adjudicating Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence
To fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, serve and guarantee the accelerated development of new quality productive forces through strict and impartial administration of justice, and guide people’s courts at all levels to lawfully adjudicate disputes involving artificial intelligence, the following Opinions are formulated in accordance with relevant laws including the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, in conjunction with the actual conditions of trial work.
I. General Requirements
i. Guiding Thought
Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, we shall further implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, conscientiously put into practice General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important thought on building cyber strength, deeply recognize that artificial intelligence is an important driving force for a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, attach equal importance to development and security, combine innovation promotion with law-based governance, adjudicate AI-related dispute cases in a just and law-based manner, promote the improvement of the safety, reliability, controllability and fairness of AI technology application, and provide strong judicial service and guarantee for comprehensively advancing the great cause of building a strong country and national rejuvenation through Chinese modernization.
ii. Basic Principles
First, put people in the first place. We should give play to the guiding role of judicial adjudication to actively guide artificial intelligence to enhance people’s wellbeing, and effectively strengthen judicial protection for people’s livelihood rights and interests in the digital era, actively and prudently explore and improve the development of judicial adjudication rules and mechanisms in the artificial intelligence field involving algorithm ethics, algorithm rules and the like, make full and good use of currently effective legal provisions, properly respond to rule conflicts, social risks and ethical challenges brought by the development of artificial intelligence technology, facilitate the improvement of the corporate social responsibility system of artificial intelligence enterprises, pay attention to preventing and eliminating algorithmic discrimination, lawfully protect an individual’s right to know and right to choose in automated decision-making, prevent and regulate acts that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the people by abusing artificial intelligence technology, and promote artificial intelligence to serve the people and develop for good;
Second, support innovative development. We should respect the law of scientific and technological innovation and the developing practice of the artificial intelligence industry, and support scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation through judicial adjudication aligned with the spirit of laws and policies as well as the law of technological development. We should explore judicial protection paths for new-type rights and interests, and continuously strengthen protection for artificial intelligence innovation achievements, innovation entities, innovation acts and innovation environment. We should balance rights and interests protection with technological and industrial development in an inclusive and prudent manner, and foster a favorable environment that encourages exploration and tolerates failures. We should regulate monopolistic or unfair competition acts committed by leveraging artificial intelligence technology in accordance with the law, lawfully guarantee equal rights, equal opportunities and equal rules for relevant entities to develop and utilize artificial intelligence technology, and strengthen equal protection for the rights and interests of business entities such as small and medium‑sized enterprises. Through law‑based, just and efficient adjudication of dispute cases involving artificial intelligence, we should actively guide and promote the in-depth integration of the Internet, big data, artificial intelligence and the real economy, help foster and expand the artificial intelligence industry, and fully unleash the huge potential of artificial intelligence in empowering high-quality economic and social development.
Third, firmly shore up the bottom line of security. We should accurately identify legal liabilities in accordance with the law in light of the specific harm that artificial intelligence may cause to the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects in different application scenarios, as well as the nature and magnitude of such risks. Differences in technical principles, risk spillover, and control capacity shall be identified among different types of large-scale models, including general-purpose and special-purpose ones, and open-source and closed-source ones, to reasonably allocate legal liabilities of subjects such as developers, providers and users. We should fully and accurately implement the penal policy of tempering justice with mercy. Criminal acts intentionally committed by leveraging artificial intelligence that endanger national security, infringe upon citizens’ rights and interests, or disrupt social order shall be resolutely and severely punished in accordance with the law. Innovative acts arising from the R&D and application of artificial intelligence shall be handled prudently in accordance with the law, in observance of the principles of legality of crimes and punishments, and compatibility of crime, liability and punishment.
II. Lawfully and Properly Adjudicate Artificial Intelligence-Related Tort Cases, and Effectively Safeguard the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Civil Subjects
iii. Accurately grasp the imputation principle for AI-related tort liability. This include accurately applying relevant legal provisions of the Civil Code, Personal Information Protection Law, Product Quality Law, Road Traffic Safety Law and other laws, and determining, in accordance with the law, the legal liability arising from infringement upon civil rights and interests committed by leveraging artificial intelligence. Where the law does not explicitly provide for the application of no‑fault liability or presumed‑fault liability, whether the actor shall bear tort liability shall be determined pursuant to the fault liability principle prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 1165 of the Civil Code. When judging whether an actor is at fault and the degree of such fault, comprehensive consideration shall be given to factors including the specific application scenario and degree of autonomy of artificial intelligence application, technical and information transparency, potential risks and scope of impact, measures adopted by relevant subjects such as artificial intelligence developers and providers to prevent and reduce AI-related torts as well as technical feasibility thereof, and the user’s capacity to foresee and control damage that may be caused by a tort committed using artificial intelligence technology.
iv. Lawfully regulate acts that infringe upon personality rights and interests by using generative artificial intelligence, such as “AI face-swapping and voice cloning” and “AI resurrection of the deceased”. Where generative artificial intelligence is used to process the name or portrait of a natural person or a deceased person, it shall not go against the laws and regulations, nor shall it contravene public order and good morals. Unless otherwise prescribed by law, where artificial intelligence is used without the consent of a natural person to process such natural person’s name, portrait, etc., to generate and use or disclose a virtual digital image identifiable to such natural person, the people’s court shall uphold the natural person’s claim that the actor has infringed upon his/her personality rights and interests including the right of name and the right of portrait. Unless otherwise prescribed by law, where a natural person’s voice is used as training corpus without such natural person’s consent to imitate such natural person’s timbre, intonation, pronunciation style and the like and generate a synthesized human voice identifiable to such natural person, the people’s court shall uphold the natural person’s claim that the actor has infringed upon his/her voice-related rights and interests. Where a virtually generated virtual digital image or voice identifiable to a specific natural person is manipulated to commit improper acts or release false statements, thereby lowering the social evaluation of such natural person or another person, the people’s court shall lawfully determine that such act constitutes an infringement upon the right of reputation. Where artificial intelligence technology is used to produce or use a deceased person’s virtual digital image without authorization, resulting in infringement upon the deceased person’s name, portrait, reputation, etc., and the deceased person’s close relatives request the actor to bear civil liability in accordance with Article 994 of the Civil Code, the people’s court shall uphold such claim in accordance with the law.
vi. Lawfully determine the civil liability for infringement upon personal information rights and interests in the training process of artificial intelligence. Where personal information voluntarily disclosed by an individual or other lawfully disclosed personal information is processed within a reasonable scope for the training of an artificial intelligence model, and the individual has not expressly refused, such act shall generally not be deemed an infringement upon personal information rights and interests. If such processing has a material impact on an individual’s rights and interests, the consent of the individual shall be obtained in accordance with the provisions of the law. When determining the reasonable scope, factors including the necessity and appropriateness of the purpose of processing personal information for the model function, the type and sensitivity level of the involved personal information as well as its potential impact on the individual’s rights and interests, the scenario in which the individual discloses the information and the reasonably foreseeable scope of use shall be comprehensively considered.
vii. Prudently determine the tort liability of a generative artificial intelligence service provider. Where content automatically generated by generative artificial intelligence infringes upon another person’s personality rights and interests including the right of reputation and the right of privacy, and the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as stopping the generation of infringing content upon notification by the right holder, the said provider shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law for the damage caused. A notification shall include prima facie evidence of infringement and the real identity information of the right holder. Where an internet user maliciously induces generative artificial intelligence to generate infringing content by entering infringing prompts or other means and causes damage to another person, the internet user shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law; upon notification by the right holder, if the generative artificial intelligence service provider fails to promptly take necessary measures such as stopping the generation of infringing content and blocking relevant generation instructions, and the right holder requests the internet user and the generative artificial intelligence service provider to assume civil liability in accordance with Article 1195 of the Civil Code, the people’s court shall support such request in accordance with the law.
viii. Lawfully apply the personality rights infringement injunction system. Where a natural person, legal person or unincorporated organization has evidence proving that an actor is committing or is about to commit an illegal act that infringes upon his/her personality rights and interests by using artificial intelligence, and failure to stop such act in a timely manner will cause irreparable harm to his/her lawful rights and interests, and such person applies to the people’s court for measures to order the actor to stop the relevant act or order the relevant internet service provider and generative artificial intelligence service provider to stop providing the relevant service, the people’s court may issue a personality rights infringement injunction in accordance with the law. When issuing a personality rights infringement injunction, the people’s court shall take corresponding injunction measures in combination with factors including the type of infringed personality right, the mode of the illegal act, and the scope and degree of possible harm, and such measures shall not exceed the necessary limit.
ix. Accurately determine the product liability of an artificial intelligence product. The people’s court shall, based on the definition of “product” prescribed in the Product Quality Law, accurately identify an artificial intelligence product with a physical object as its carrier in accordance with the law and apply corresponding legal rules. Where an artificial intelligence product has a defect that causes damage, its producer and seller shall bear product liability in accordance with the law. When determining whether an artificial intelligence product poses an unreasonable danger to personal and property safety, factors including the nature and intended use of the artificial intelligence product, autonomous learning capability, upgrade and update status, the user’s degree of control over the system, and compliance with relevant national standards and industrial standards shall be comprehensively considered. Focus shall be placed on examining whether the producer and seller have provided a truthful description and clear warning concerning the applicable scenarios, inherent limitations and foreseeable risks of the artificial intelligence product.
x. Lawfully regulate acts that infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of consumers, such as “big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers” and “simulated celebrity live-streaming sales”. Where a business operator uses an algorithm to impose unreasonable differential treatment with regard to transaction conditions including the price for the same commodity or service, and causes damages by infringing upon another person’s lawful rights and interests, the people’s court shall determine that the operator bears corresponding liability in accordance with the law. When determining whether unreasonable differential treatment is constituted, the court shall judge whether such differential treatment substantially restricts or harms the consumer’s right to know, right to independent choice, right to fair transaction, among other rights, whether transaction conditions targeting the individual consumer are formed based on information such as the consumer’s consumption preference, willingness to pay, payment capacity and browsing record, and whether violation to the principle of good faith and business ethics occurs. The court shall comprehensively consider whether the reason for imposing differential treatment is legitimate, sufficient and non-discriminatory. Where a business operator, in providing a commodity or service, uses artificial intelligence to conduct “simulated celebrity live-streaming sales” and commits fraud, and the consumer claims punitive damages in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law, the people’s court shall support such claim in accordance with the law.
xi. Lawfully determine the compensation liability for traffic accidents involving an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle having an assisted driving function. Where an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle having an assisted driving function runs on a road and causes damage in a traffic accident, compensation liability shall be borne in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law. Where damages are caused by a traffic accident due to a product defect of the vehicle, and the concerned party requests the producer or seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, Book VII of the Civil Code, the people’s court shall uphold such request. Where damages are caused jointly by a defect of the vehicle having an assisted driving function and a wrongful act of the driver, and the concerned party requests both the driver and the vehicle producer or seller to bear compensation liability in accordance with Article 1172 of the Civil Code and other provisions, the people’s court shall support such request in accordance with the law. Where the vehicle producer or seller makes false or misleading publicity regarding the automation level, intelligence degree, performance, intended use and other matters of an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle having an assisted driving function, harming the lawful rights and interests of a consumer, and the consumer requests the vehicle producer or seller to bear civil liability in accordance with the Civil Code, the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law and other laws, the people’s court shall support such request in accordance with the law. To ascertain the cause of a road traffic accident, the people’s court may require a data controlling party such as the vehicle producer, seller or marketing operator to provide authentic and complete data necessary for ascertaining the facts of the case, including event records of autonomous driving and assisted driving, within a necessary scope.
III. Lawfully and properly hear intellectual property dispute cases involving artificial intelligence to safeguard the high-quality development and high-level security of artificial intelligence.
xii. Lawfully regulate acts of intellectual property infringement involving artificial intelligence. Where contents generated by artificial intelligence infringe upon another person’s copyright, the people’s court shall comprehensively consider factors including the type of artificial intelligence service, industrial characteristics, source of training data, participation degree of each party, necessary measures adopted, and profit gained, and reasonably determine the liabilities of the developer, the provider and the user of the artificial intelligence in accordance with the law. Where the developer of the artificial intelligence sets forth non-infringement defense, the court shall order it to provide corroborating evidence such as the source of training data, records of the training process, model operation mode, and scientific theoretical basis. Where a right holder claims that an artificial intelligence provider infringes upon its copyright by utilizing algorithmic technology, the right holder shall submit relevant evidence. Where an artificial intelligence user knows or ought to know of a prior work, uses artificial intelligence to generate a work substantially similar to the prior work without justifiable grounds for defense, and the right holder of the prior work requests the user to bear infringement liability, the people’s court shall uphold such request. Where a person uses artificial intelligence to commit acts such as infringement and counterfeiting, false publicity, click farming and transaction padding, which infringe upon another person’s rights or constitute unfair competition, the person shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with the law.
xiii. Lawfully and reasonably determine the legal liability of a party concerning open-source software related to artificial intelligence. In hearing cases concerning open-source software and determining the tort liability of an open-source software developer, provider, and subsequent developer and provider, the people’s court shall comprehensively consider factors including the type of open-source license agreement, specific contents of rights restriction, safety and compliance measures, and the degree of information disclosure, and grant appropriate liability exemption to the open-source software developer and provider in accordance with the law. Where an open-source software developer or provider supplies partial code modules required for the research and development of artificial intelligence-related software on a free and open-source basis, and has publicly stated its function and safety risks, and infringement arises from another person’s use of such code modules, the people’s court may find that the open-source software developer or provider bears no tort liability.
xiv. Lawfully regulate patent grant and confirmation acts for an invention-creation related to artificial intelligence. Where an invention-creation related to artificial intelligence adopts technical means complying with the laws of nature, resolves a technical problem, and achieves a technical effect in line with the laws of nature, the people’s court shall find the invention-creation to be a subject matter eligible for protection under the Patent Law, unless the invention-creation violates the law, social morality, harms public interests, or does not involve substantive contribution by a natural person. Where a natural person uses artificial intelligence to complete an invention-creation, and said natural person makes a creative contribution to the substantive features of the invention-creation, the natural person shall be identified as the inventor. Where the description of a technical solution in a patent specification related to artificial intelligence is expressed to such an extent that a person skilled in the art can implement the invention, it shall be deemed to satisfy the sufficient disclosure requirement for granting a patent.
xv. Lawfully and prudently determine the liability for breach of contract arising from the performance of a technology contract related to artificial intelligence. In hearing cases of disputes over the performance of a contract for development, transfer, licensing, consultation or service involving AI-related technology, the people’s court shall determine the liability for breach of contract in accordance with the contract terms while fully taking into account circumstances such as the characteristics of research and development for AI-related technology and whether the technology developing party has exercised reasonable efforts.
xvi. Lawfully regulate conducts of use of data related to artificial intelligence. Where an artificial intelligence developer lawfully obtains data and enjoys corresponding rights and interests over the data through means including collection and generation, derivative creation, acquisition by assignment, and licensing, the people’s court shall provide protection therefor. Data or a data set that constitute a compilation work or satisfies the constituent elements of another work shall be protected under the Copyright Law. Data or a data set that constitutes a trade secret shall be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Where data or a data set does not constitute a trade secret, and the alleged infringing act violates Article 13 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the actor shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with the law. Where a business operator reaches a monopoly agreement or commits an act such as abuse of dominant market position by adopting technical means including data and algorithm, the operator shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with the law. One who adopts technical means such as fabricating interfering data, maliciously annotating data, and adversarial sample attack to impair the operational security of artificial intelligence shall bear corresponding liability in accordance with the law.
IV. Improve procedural rules for hearing cases of disputes related to artificial intelligence, and lawfully punish illegal and criminal acts such as obstruction of judicial order committed by use of generative artificial intelligence.
xvii. Lawfully and accurately ascertain the facts of a case of dispute involving artificial intelligence. In view of the characteristics of cases of disputes involving artificial intelligence, such as strong technicality and high requirements for professional knowledge, the people’s court shall strengthen litigation guidance and clarification in accordance with the law, and guide the concerned parties to complete evidence production timely and comprehensively around disputed facts. Where a party is unable to collect evidence on its own due to objective reasons, it may apply to the people’s court for investigation and collection of evidence; when necessary, the people’s court may investigate and collect evidence ex officio. Where a party applies for evidence preservation to preserve key technology, the people’s court shall promptly review the application in accordance with the law. Where a party in control of a piece of evidence, such as documentary evidence and electronic data, refuses to submit the piece of evidence without justifiable cause, and the opposing party asserts that the content of the piece of evidence is adverse to the controlling party, the people’s court may find such assertion established. Where specialized issues involving the technical principle and operation mechanism of artificial intelligence are involved, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, fully leverage the roles of a people’s juror, an expert evaluator, an expert assistant and a technical investigator to assist in ascertaining the facts of the case.
xviii. Explore and refine the rules for evidence review in cases of disputes related to artificial intelligence. The people’s court shall fully consider the complexity of artificial intelligence technology, the opacity of system operation, and the particularity of evidence collection, and continuously refine the rules for evidence review to adapt to the development of new technologies. The court shall attach importance to the examination of the authenticity and integrity of generation, collection, storage and transmission process of electronic data. Differentiated priorities should be assigned to review of evidence generated by different information technologies such as big data and blockchain. For big data analysis reports serving as the evidence, the court shall focus on examining the source of the recorded raw data, the cleaning rules, and the scientific nature of its analytical method. For blockchain evidence preservation, the court shall focus on examining the authenticity of data prior to upload and the reliability of the technical platform. Where a party uses contents generated by artificial intelligence as the infringement evidence, the people’s court shall take into account the factors including prompt design and its impact on the generation output, the degree of similarity between the generated content and the work for which rights are claimed, consistency in repeated tests, as well as model training, algorithm design, and the filtering mechanism for generated content.
xix. Lawfully regulate acts that obstruct judicial order such as improper evidence collection by use of artificial intelligence. Where a party takes false evidence by means of human intervention or misleading manipulation, taking advantage the characteristics of autonomous learning and autonomous decision-making of artificial intelligence, including deleting or tampering with marks of generated and synthesized content, inputting specific instructions, presenting selective results, and adversarial interference, to fabricate the basic facts of a civil case and initiate false litigation in the attempt to infringe upon national interests, public interests or the lawful rights and interests of another person, the people’s court shall dismiss its claims in accordance with the law, and impose a fine or detention depending on the seriousness of the circumstances; if such act constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be investigated in accordance with the law. Where a litigation participant or any other person forges evidence by use of artificial intelligence and obstructs the hearing of a case by the people’s court, such a conduct shall be handled in accordance with Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law. Where materials submitted by a litigation participant, such as litigation documents and case retrieval reports, are generated by artificial intelligence, the participant shall carefully verify the authenticity and accuracy of the cited laws, judicial interpretations, cases and other contents before submission to the court, state the use of artificial intelligence assistance upon submission, and bear liability in accordance with the law for the authenticity and accuracy of such contents.
xx. Lawfully punish criminal activities committed by use of artificial intelligence. Where an act committed by use of artificial intelligence, such as fraud, insult, defamation, damage to business reputation and commodity reputation, infringement upon citizens’ personal information, unlawful acquisition of computer information system data, and production, sale or dissemination of obscene articles, constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law. Where an actor activates the assisted driving function and then uses privately installed accessories to evade monitoring by the assisted driving system, resulting in a road traffic accident, and the act of the actor constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law.
V. Strengthen guidance for trying cases of disputes related to artificial intelligence, and continuously improve and refine working mechanisms.
xxi. Give full play to the role of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms. The people’s court shall actively apply diversified dispute resolution mechanisms to properly settle a dispute related to artificial intelligence, promote establishing a linked and coordinative mechanism among competent authorities, industry-specific professional mediation organizations, and experts and scholars of the artificial intelligence industry to join efforts in dispute resolution, and deliver effective pre-litigation mediation. Based on its judicial trial function, the people’s court shall further advance rule-of-law governance for the prevention and resolution of disputes related to artificial intelligence. The people’s court shall clarify rights and obligations and define the boundary of conducts actively through means such as open court hearing and law interpretation by cases, exert the exemplary and guiding effect of judicial adjudication, and facilitate the source prevention and timely resolution of disputes related to artificial intelligence.
xxii. Strengthen trial supervision and guidance. The people’s court shall actively standardize the application of hierarchical jurisdiction elevation, reinforce the exemplary and guiding effect, and deliver effective trial supervision and guidance. Where a case of dispute related to artificial intelligence involves major interests, is a difficult, complex and new type of case, bears significance for rule formulation, or requires unification of standards for application of law, the people’s court at a higher level shall conduct trial by elevating jurisdiction. The case guidance by People’s Court Case Library should be given full play to promote the unification of law application and the improvement of governance rules for artificial intelligence.
xxiii. Strengthen inter-department collaboration and coordination. The people’s court shall give full play to its judicial function through various means such as issuing judicial recommendations and establishing cooperation mechanisms to serve national and social governance. The people’s court shall strengthen connection and collaboration with competent authorities including cyberspace administration, public security, procuratorial organs, and market regulation authorities, and establish and implement a long-term comprehensive governance mechanism. It shall guide relevant enterprises, platforms, and industry associations to standardize self-governance, and foster a full-chain protective synergy integrating industry self-discipline, administrative supervision and judicial safeguard for the artificial intelligence sector.
xxiv. Strengthen international judicial exchange and cooperation. The people’s court shall properly hear cases of cross-border disputes involving artificial intelligence and data. Adhering to the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, the people’s court shall promote exchange and cooperation in foreign-related trial in the field of artificial intelligence, strengthen rule alignment and mutual learning, foster a fairer, more reasonable, inclusive and open governance system for artificial intelligence, and promote and protect the diversity of the artificial intelligence ecosystem and human civilization.
